Different vs. Seperate Runways

[Pilot12345]

​

The "two-nav" rule states to add 200 and 1/2 to the higher of the two approaches for airports with at least two operational navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in nonprecision approach procedure or a straight-in precision approach to different, suitable runways.
From what I have read, an airport with runways 25L and 25R are separate but not different.
So my question is, using the above example, if 25L and 25R both had suitable straight-in IAPs involving separate navaids could I use the “two-nav” rule? Even though they are separate runways I would think they are different as well. Or does different runway mean the same piece of pavement, example 25L, 7R?
Thanks for your help

 

[pilotyip]

Yes 25L and 25R, if they both had seperate IAP's, would meet the two runway rule. So would RW 5 and RW 23 being the same piece of concrete if each end had a different IAP.

 

[AntiJedi]

Having a different approach procedure may mean that it may be suitable, but that is not the case. You need to have two DIFFERENT navigational facilities, to DIFFERENT runways. The runways CAN be the same piece of concrete.

For example: AUS 17R/35L

ILS 17R: 110.95 IGFQ
ILS 35L: 110.95 IBSM

The localizers are two entirely different pieces of equipment, and therefore qualify under two-nav rule.

Pilotyip offers that as long as there's an IAP to two different runways, then it is suitable. This may work in many situations out there, but it can, and will, bite you. For instance: anything involving a Back-Course approach is NOT legal, as you are using the same localizer as the front-side approach.

 

[clr4theapch]

Leave it to the dispatcher to clarify the FAR... you pilots have a great resource in your dispatcher... just ask us!

 

[pilotyip]

Having a different approach procedure may mean that it may be suitable, but that is not the case. You need to have two DIFFERENT navigational facilities, to DIFFERENT runways. The runways CAN be the same piece of concrete.

For example: AUS 17R/35L

ILS 17R: 110.95 IGFQ
ILS 35L: 110.95 IBSM

The localizers are two entirely different pieces of equipment, and therefore qualify under two-nav rule.

Pilotyip offers that as long as there's an IAP to two different runways, then it is suitable. This may work in many situations out there, but it can, and will, bite you. For instance: anything involving a Back-Course approach is NOT legal, as you are using the same localizer as the front-side approach.

you are correct it must be a different Nav Aid, a VOR 24 and a VOR 6 off the same VOR would not be two different approaches

 

[ksu_aviator]

Leave it to the dispatcher to clarify the FAR... you pilots have a great resource in your dispatcher... just ask us!

Would these be the same dispatchers that file for FL250 on a 75 NM flight?

 

[rickair7777]

Having a different approach procedure may mean that it may be suitable, but that is not the case. You need to have two DIFFERENT navigational facilities, to DIFFERENT runways. The runways CAN be the same piece of concrete.

For example: AUS 17R/35L

ILS 17R: 110.95 IGFQ
ILS 35L: 110.95 IBSM

The localizers are two entirely different pieces of equipment, and therefore qualify under two-nav rule.

Pilotyip offers that as long as there's an IAP to two different runways, then it is suitable. This may work in many situations out there, but it can, and will, bite you. For instance: anything involving a Back-Course approach is NOT legal, as you are using the same localizer as the front-side approach.

In the case of reciprocal runways which use the same freq AND identifier, the assumption is that one radio system feeds both directions so that would not count as two different approaches. At least that's the tribal knowledge where I work.

 

[pilotyip]

two different

In the case of reciprocal runways which use the same freq AND identifier, the assumption is that one radio system feeds both directions so that would not count as two different approaches. At least that's the tribal knowledge where I work.

If there is a different identifier on the same freq., it is a separate Nav aid that allows a separate approach.

 

[gulfstream2345]

Spelling

I guess spelling is not an ATP requirement but wait, maybe it is, you have to be able to read, write, speak and understand English. Separate is how you spell it.

Yes 25L and 25R, if they both had seperate IAP's, would meet the two runway rule. So would RW 5 and RW 23 being the same piece of concrete if each end had a different IAP.

 

[pilotyip]

I guess spelling is not an ATP requirement but wait, maybe it is, you have to be able to read, write, speak and understand English. Separate is how you spell it.

Thnak godonses, I naelry fulnked the frouth garde beasue of sppeling, but I won the math bee, so my fourth grade teacher applied the mercy rule and let me go to the fifth. See what a college and psot graduate education will do for you. BTW try this i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!